If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Think Progress)   In one day, more people have signed a petition asking Obama to address gun control than Texans wanting to secede from the Union   (thinkprogress.org) divider line 1049
    More: Obvious, President Obama, unions, gun regulation, petitions  
•       •       •

3076 clicks; posted to Politics » on 15 Dec 2012 at 8:59 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



1049 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-12-15 06:03:49 PM
Murder is already illegal and morally reprehensible. If someone has crossed that line in their mind, no other legislation is going to make much difference.
 
2012-12-15 06:04:50 PM
Banning the sale of all firearms both new and used that can fire more than 2 shots without reloading would be nice. Yeah it won't completely solve the problem, but it sure as hell won't hurt.
 
2012-12-15 06:06:16 PM
So there are more stupid people in the entire U.S. than there are stupid people in the state of Texas?
 
2012-12-15 06:13:11 PM
What if Obama submits a bill to Congress next month that extends mental healthcare to everyone? We could call it Medicare Part E or something. Surely people would be okay with that if it'll prevent at least one mass shooting, right?
 
2012-12-15 06:13:34 PM
Tipping point.
 
2012-12-15 06:15:21 PM
That's because gun control is a serious issue that sensible people want to see addressed...not the pathetic whining of a few paranoid, pussy "conservative" tebaggers.
 
2012-12-15 06:15:49 PM

themindiswatching: What if Obama submits a bill to Congress next month that



It doesn't matter how you finish this sentence, the Republican answer is "no."
 
2012-12-15 06:19:53 PM

kmmontandon: themindiswatching: What if Obama submits a bill to Congress next month that


It doesn't matter how you finish this sentence, the Republican answer is "no."


The more erudite among them will say "No, because communism"
 
2012-12-15 06:22:26 PM

kmmontandon: themindiswatching: What if Obama submits a bill to Congress next month that


It doesn't matter how you finish this sentence, the Republican answer is "no."


It's because Republicans already know that adding more laws won't stop the killing. Once someone decides to go kill a school full of children, they're going to find a way. If they cant' get a hold of guns, they'll bring swords or machetes or axes; they'll bring acid, or build pipe bombs and car bombs. Point is--further restricting the tool isn't going to correct the underlying condition--it's nothing more that a band-aid when the body needs an antibiotic.
 
2012-12-15 06:25:25 PM

BravadoGT: kmmontandon: themindiswatching: What if Obama submits a bill to Congress next month that


It doesn't matter how you finish this sentence, the Republican answer is "no."

It's because Republicans already know that adding more laws won't stop the killing. Once someone decides to go kill a school full of children, they're going to find a way. If they cant' get a hold of guns, they'll bring swords or machetes or axes; they'll bring acid, or build pipe bombs and car bombs. Point is--further restricting the tool isn't going to correct the underlying condition--it's nothing more that a band-aid when the body needs an antibiotic.


Leave it to you to bring the ignorance and unsupported talking points.
 
2012-12-15 06:25:39 PM
I wish I had the cash to invest in Smith & Wesson, because the moment Obama opens his mouth on the topic, gun sales are gonna SKYROCKET.
 
2012-12-15 06:27:53 PM

BravadoGT: kmmontandon: themindiswatching: What if Obama submits a bill to Congress next month that


It doesn't matter how you finish this sentence, the Republican answer is "no."

It's because Republicans already know that adding more laws won't stop the killing. Once someone decides to go kill a school full of children, they're going to find a way. If they cant' get a hold of guns, they'll bring swords or machetes or axes; they'll bring acid, or build pipe bombs and car bombs. Point is--further restricting the tool isn't going to correct the underlying condition--it's nothing more that a band-aid when the body needs an antibiotic.


You do know that the same day this happened a lunatic in China went into a school and stabbed 22 kids, right?

And you do know that no one died, right?

The "they'll just use a knife or ax or baseball bat" argument is the absolute stupidest argument in the entire discussion.
 
2012-12-15 06:28:05 PM

Saborlas: I wish I had the cash to invest in Smith & Wesson, because the moment Obama opens his mouth on the topic, gun sales are gonna SKYROCKET.


Yup, they'd better stock up on guns and ammo, the libs are gettin' uppity.
 
2012-12-15 06:28:41 PM
Because at least half this country wants gun control. The other half is whingeing in the politics tab right now.
 
2012-12-15 06:29:05 PM

cameroncrazy1984: Tipping point.


It would be nice to have an evidence-based conversation about this.
 
2012-12-15 06:29:31 PM
Because 20 six and seven year olds being shot up to 11 times is more terrible than a bunch of white Texans protesting a black president?
 
2012-12-15 06:30:52 PM

coco ebert: Because at least half this country wants gun control. The other half is whingeing in the politics tab right now.


Part of this is a messaging problem. We need to specify what regulations we're talking about. I have a whole host of ideas, but it's Saturday night and as much as I'd love to stay in and argue about guns on the Internet I actually have a date with my wife...
 
2012-12-15 06:33:46 PM

kmmontandon: themindiswatching: What if Obama submits a bill to Congress next month that


It doesn't matter how you finish this sentence, the Republican answer is "no."


I'd have argued that was hyperbole, if I hadn't watched Turtle McTurtle veto his own bill last week, just to keep democrats from passing anything - even his own proposals.
 
2012-12-15 06:34:17 PM

BravadoGT: It's because Republicans already know that adding more laws won't stop the killing. Once someone decides to go kill a school full of children, they're going to find a way. If they cant' get a hold of guns, they'll bring swords or machetes or axes; they'll bring acid, or build pipe bombs and car bombs. Point is--further restricting the tool isn't going to correct the underlying condition--it's nothing more that a band-aid when the body needs an antibiotic.


Except my proposal had nothing to do with gun control.
 
2012-12-15 06:36:50 PM
Personally, I think the idea of individuals being able to own weapons of mass slaughter is ridiculous. However, the US is so soaked in these type of weapons that I have sort of just resigned to the US being a house of horror several times a year with incidents like this and in some neighborhoods pretty much every day.

While in a Utopia guns would not be required, we don't live there. Therefore, I am not going to put up a fight against basic gun ownership. Home protection and hunting seem like reasonable arguments for some arms. Keeping any government wary of walking jackbooted into society and just grabbing whomever whenever without having to worry about some resistance is probably a good thing for society. I think Canada is yet again a good example for the US to learn from (but probably won't because USA!USA!USA!USA!USA!), but I don't think it is sane as a society to say that any type of arms are fair game. Are we set to allow the 2nd Amendment arms definition to go all the way to personal nuclear arms races? No, I don't think so, so there is obviously an arms line somewhere. It seems to me that line should be weapons of mass destruction, and that would seem to include any weapon where you can kill tens of people within seconds to short minutes. For self defense, if you are trained (which should be required for owning arms), you shouldn't need to rain down bullets on an attacker. If you are hunting, you are not a very good sportsman if you need to fire off multiple shots a minute to take down a deer.

There is a reasonable, sane line out there. Unfortunately, many in America get set in an ideology that goes to an extreme, and reasonable legislation is not what becomes reality.
 
2012-12-15 06:38:43 PM

syrynxx: Murder is already illegal and morally reprehensible. If someone has crossed that line in their mind, no other legislation is going to make much difference.


What is this, I don't even.
 
2012-12-15 06:39:55 PM

MisterTweak: kmmontandon: themindiswatching: What if Obama submits a bill to Congress next month that


It doesn't matter how you finish this sentence, the Republican answer is "no."

I'd have argued that was hyperbole, if I hadn't watched Turtle McTurtle veto his own bill last week, just to keep democrats from passing anything - even his own proposals.


Some political parties just want to watch the world burn.
 
2012-12-15 06:49:02 PM

coco ebert: Because at least half this country wants gun control. The other half is whingeing in the politics tab right now.


And the other half will get a gun regardless.

/manbearpig argument
 
2012-12-15 06:51:14 PM

BravadoGT: It's because Republicans already know that adding more laws won't stop the killing. Once someone decides to go kill a school full of children, they're going to find a way. If they cant' get a hold of guns, they'll bring swords or machetes or axes; they'll bring acid, or build pipe bombs and car bombs. Point is--further restricting the tool isn't going to correct the underlying condition--it's nothing more that a band-aid when the body needs an antibiotic.


I can't tell if this is a serious response of a parody.
 
2012-12-15 06:54:19 PM

syrynxx: Murder is already illegal and morally reprehensible. If someone has crossed that line in their mind, no other legislation is going to make much difference.


Well, they might be able to slow down how many people that person can kill in 10 minutes.
 
2012-12-15 06:55:11 PM

syrynxx: Murder is already illegal and morally reprehensible. If someone has crossed that line in their mind, no other legislation is going to make much difference.


So we should just do nothing? That's your solution?
 
2012-12-15 06:55:44 PM
If you ban weapons, killers will just kill with their bare hands. Or develop telekinesis.

Or both!!!
 
2012-12-15 06:57:51 PM
He used pistols, not an AK-47. Your choices are ban all guns or do nothing. All guns will not be banned. Next.
 
2012-12-15 06:58:36 PM

Shostie: If you ban weapons, killers will just kill with their bare hands. Or develop telekinesis.

Or both!!!


Never undermisestimate the power of the paper clip. Those things are dangerous.
 
2012-12-15 07:05:16 PM
Can't we just have a full-blown Constitutional Convention, so everyone can get in on the fun? 

/I'll let people argue about gun control, while I sneak in proportional representation and a better tax code.
 
2012-12-15 07:06:56 PM

birdmanesq: cameroncrazy1984: Tipping point.

It would be nice to have an evidence-based conversation about this.


OK, let's ban all guns for a while and gather evidence.
 
2012-12-15 07:06:58 PM

Snarfangel: and a better tax code.


You want to put the tax code in the constitution?

That doesn't seem like a good idea.
 
2012-12-15 07:10:50 PM

syrynxx: Murder is already illegal and morally reprehensible. If someone has crossed that line in their mind, no other legislation is going to make much difference.


If someone has crossed that line in his mind, that's fine. It happens all the time, I'm sure. But crossing that line in reality is another matter. It seems to be easier to cross that line in reality in a nation awash in guns, and maybe that's something we can address. I don't know. I think there is a debate we can have.
 
2012-12-15 07:15:21 PM
There are currently over 200 million firearms in private hands in the US. That particular genie is way, way out of the bottle. So, our options are:

1: Ban (or restrict) future sales. Does nothing about the existing guns. Over the LONG term, it will decrease the firearm ownership density, which will probably do some good, but not for a while.
2: Attempt something confiscatory. Yeah, that's not going to happen in the US. I know some people will claim that this is a flippant dismissal of the most logical choice, but it's the option that is probably most rife with political, social, economic pitfalls. Unless the majority of the people in the US decide that they personally (not "someone else", but THEM) shouldn't be allowed to own guns, it won't happen.
3: Substantial criminal background checks for purchases. Does nothing about the nutcase who hasn't ever been arrested.
4: Substantial background checks, both criminal AND of the healthcare system, for purchases. Unless we're willing to repeal HIPAA, not happening. Will actively prevent some people from seeking mental health services for fear that their ownership rights will be revoked. May get at some whackjobs before they snap. Suggests that there will need to be a governmental board deciding who is sane enough to own guns.
5: Some version of 1-4, but regarding ammunition rather than actual firearms. Do-able (and less likely to violate the 2nd Amendment), but with many of the same issues. Will increase number of people creating their own ammunition unless laws also restrict that equipment, powder, primers, etc.

Of course, we could be rational and set up a healthcare system that actually CARES for people their entire lives, so that minor issues might be identified and addressed before people become homicidal. Weirdly, this is seen by many people in the US as a horrible idea, though it would be the kindest and least "intrusive" of any of the options. Universal healthcare combined with a pretty strict, nationally-based training and licensing law would allow people to own guns, mandate a hell of a lot more training in safe handling, use, and storage, care for people at the breaking point, care for people well before they reached the breaking point, identify people who really have no business owning guns, and would, when fully implemented, make for a heck of a safer, saner, nicer country.

So I imagine there's no way in hell we'll do it.
 
2012-12-15 07:16:39 PM

PC LOAD LETTER: He used pistols, not an AK-47. Your choices are ban all guns or do nothing. All guns will not be banned. Next.


Things are still obviously a bit fuzzy, but this is the latest from CNN on the weapons: He didn't say what that weapon was, but a law enforcement source has previously said that the gunman was found dead with next to three guns: a semi-automatic .223-caliber Bushmaster rifle and two pistols made by Glock and Sig Sauer.

(http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2012/12/15/children-and-adults-gunned-down - in-connecticut-school-massacre/?hpt=hp_t1)
 
2012-12-15 07:16:48 PM

MayoSlather: Banning the sale of all firearms both new and used that can fire more than 2 shots without reloading would be nice. Yeah it won't completely solve the problem, but it sure as hell won't hurt.



How about no? Does no work for you?
 
2012-12-15 07:18:49 PM

syrynxx: Murder is already illegal and morally reprehensible. If someone has crossed that line in their mind, no other legislation is going to make much difference.


So what is it that is different about America and other 1st-world nations that makes this sort of thing so much more frequent in America?

At some point, it would be nice if one of the "it's not the guns" types would tell us what the problem really is.

Difficulty: not enough guns is not the problem
 
2012-12-15 07:19:57 PM

The_Sponge: MayoSlather: Banning the sale of all firearms both new and used that can fire more than 2 shots without reloading would be nice. Yeah it won't completely solve the problem, but it sure as hell won't hurt.


How about no? Does no work for you?


Why no? Seriously. Why do you need a firearm to fire more than to rounds without reloading?
 
2012-12-15 07:20:37 PM

MayoSlather: The_Sponge: MayoSlather: Banning the sale of all firearms both new and used that can fire more than 2 shots without reloading would be nice. Yeah it won't completely solve the problem, but it sure as hell won't hurt.


How about no? Does no work for you?

Why no? Seriously. Why do you need a firearm to fire more than to two rounds without reloading?


oops.
 
2012-12-15 07:21:16 PM

Shostie: Snarfangel: and a better tax code.

You want to put the tax code in the constitution?

That doesn't seem like a good idea.


I was thinking more along the lines of the tax framework, rather than the thousands of pages Congress will eventually stick to it. Basically, make Georgist and Pigovian taxes the preferred source of revenue, rather than taxes on income, capital, or trade.
 
2012-12-15 07:22:47 PM
Let them have their guns. With a rule to be added that if you step outside your home with a semiauto firearm you spend
5 years in jail and loose all your weapons. (the hunters should have no problem with this). This allows them to fondle their
murder machines in the privacy of their homes.
 
2012-12-15 07:24:46 PM

sparkeyjames: Let them have their guns. With a rule to be added that if you step outside your home with a semiauto firearm you spend
5 years in jail and loose all your weapons. (the hunters should have no problem with this). This allows them to fondle their
murder machines in the privacy of their homes.



Hurrr durrrrr. Or were you going for "derp"?
 
2012-12-15 07:30:41 PM

cameroncrazy1984: Tipping point.


The tipping point is located where the Mason-Dixon Line intersects the Mississippi River.
 
2012-12-15 07:32:04 PM

MayoSlather: Banning the sale of all firearms both new and used that can fire more than 2 shots without reloading would be nice. Yeah it won't completely solve the problem, but it sure as hell won't hurt.


That's pretty hard to do, from a manufacturing standpoint. Most weapons that are limited in their capacity are that way due to either not having a magazine or having a magazine built in (like a shotgun). Problem is, a semi-automatic weapon (of any type) is not limited by the actual weapon, but by the magazine. I can load a 15 round mag or a 50 round mag, the rifle doesn't care.

Canada has about the only real solution to this - removal of handguns. Anyone with a handgun that isn't in a uniform is a criminal. Long guns are easier to spot, so it's harder to pull off mass shootings if that's all you've got (you can sneak in one or two, but you'll be seen a mile off otherwise.). Add a ban on all large magazines, and you've got a rather effective method for reducing shooting sprees. A shooter would have 5-10 rounds, max, before having to stop and reload. That reload gives people time to flee, police or armed guards to return fire, people to tackle him, anything.

Though that will not stop the problem, as evidenced by this very shooting, and all "gunman in the clock tower" situations. It is, however, a start.

/pro-gun
//keeps a model 88 for home defense
 
2012-12-15 07:33:52 PM

Lionel Mandrake: That's because gun control is a serious issue that sensible people want to see addressed...not the pathetic whining of a few paranoid, pussy "conservative" tebaggers.


This.
 
jbc [TotalFark]
2012-12-15 07:52:57 PM

DamnYankees: BravadoGT: It's because Republicans already know that adding more laws won't stop the killing. Once someone decides to go kill a school full of children, they're going to find a way. If they cant' get a hold of guns, they'll bring swords or machetes or axes; they'll bring acid, or build pipe bombs and car bombs. Point is--further restricting the tool isn't going to correct the underlying condition--it's nothing more that a band-aid when the body needs an antibiotic.

I can't tell if this is a serious response of a parody.


Sadly, from him it's a serious response. He's Exhibit B on why the nation needs to start addressing mental illness seriously.
 
2012-12-15 07:56:36 PM

Lionel Mandrake: BravadoGT: kmmontandon: themindiswatching: What if Obama submits a bill to Congress next month that

It doesn't matter how you finish this sentence, the Republican answer is "no."

It's because Republicans already know that adding more laws won't stop the killing. Once someone decides to go kill a school full of children, they're going to find a way. If they cant' get a hold of guns, they'll bring swords or machetes or axes; they'll bring acid, or build pipe bombs and car bombs. Point is--further restricting the tool isn't going to correct the underlying condition--it's nothing more that a band-aid when the body needs an antibiotic.

You do know that the same day this happened a lunatic in China went into a school and stabbed 22 kids, right?

And you do know that no one died, right?

The "they'll just use a knife or ax or baseball bat" argument is the absolute stupidest argument in the entire discussion.


Just came to post this.

Link: China stabbing spree hurts 22 schoolchildren
 
2012-12-15 08:12:51 PM

Coolfusis: Canada has about the only real solution to this - removal of handguns. Anyone with a handgun that isn't in a uniform is a criminal.


Handguns aren't banned in Canada, except for ones with extremely short barrels, or that shoot .25 or .32 caliber ammunition. Other are restricted, which means you need to be licensed to get them. They still grant plenty of licenses for gunowners.

I'm not trying to justify tightening our own gun laws, I'm just saying Canada has managed to do it without banning handguns entirely, which I believe is what you thought they did.
 
2012-12-15 08:13:54 PM

Lsherm: I'm not trying to justify avoiding a tightening of our own gun laws


Needed to fix that.
 
2012-12-15 08:20:27 PM

Lionel Mandrake: syrynxx: Murder is already illegal and morally reprehensible. If someone has crossed that line in their mind, no other legislation is going to make much difference.

So what is it that is different about America and other 1st-world nations that makes this sort of thing so much more frequent in America?

Do more people die from these insane attacks in the US than say in a place like Norway? And if you look on a per capita basis, isn't it a lot worse in Norway than the US?

At some point, it would be nice if one of the "it's not the guns" types would tell us what the problem really is.

Insane people do insane things. Is that so hard to understand?

 
Displayed 50 of 1049 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report